_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV: Modern - USA
Modern Armor, AFVs, and Support vehicles.
Hosted by Darren Baker
Its back....M8 Buford AGS
SEDimmick
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: March 15, 2002
KitMaker: 1,745 posts
Armorama: 1,483 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 02:39 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Inside The Army
March 15, 2004
Pg. 1

Army To Transfer Four Armored Gun Systems To 82nd Airborne Division


The Army last week approved the transfer of four M8 Armored Gun Systems from contractor storage facilities to the 82nd Airborne Division at Ft. Bragg, NC, sources say, marking the first time the vehicles will be used by the service since the program was terminated in 1996.

Proposed in the 1980s as a lightweight combat vehicle that could fit aboard a C-130, the AGS was canceled as the Army struggled to pay for other priorities. Contractor United Defense LP, which fought the cancellation decision, has five M8 AGS vehicles in stock -- four in York, PA, and one in San Jose, CA.

The 18th Airborne Corps at Ft. Bragg recently passed along an “operational needs statement” to Army Forces Command that spells out the division’s need for a rapidly deployable vehicle with firepower that could be dropped from an aircraft (Inside the Army, Feb. 16, p1). The Army’s operations and plans office, or “G-3,” has been reviewing the requirement with Training and Doctrine Command.

TRADOC completed its analysis on Feb. 19, and the G-3 approved the needs statement on March 8, authorizing transfer of the existing vehicles to the 82nd Airborne Division, sources say. By press time (March 11), the Army had not released a copy of the approval documents.

According to one source, officials made it clear in the documents that the transfer in “no way should be construed as support for an AGS program.” Instead, it is an attempt to meet the immediate requirement with an interim solution and allow the division to begin developing and refining tactics, techniques and procedures.

The unit expects to receive the vehicles by the end of March, the source said.

Rep. Robin Hayes (R-NC), a member of the House Armed Services Committee whose district includes Ft. Bragg, said he is pleased with the decision, but does not want the transfer to be misconstrued as a move to revive the terminated program.

“To be clear, I am not endorsing one system over another,” Hayes told ITA in a March 12 statement. “I simply believe that, if these existing AGS are combat-worthy, then they should be fully utilized while we await the future technologies that are already in production.

“My priority on this matter is simple -- what can we do to help our soldiers in the field the fastest?” he added. “If our soldiers can utilize these existing systems, then I want these systems in Baghdad rather than in a manufacturing facility in Pennsylvania.”

Hayes asked the Army last December to provide him information on the matter, including how much the transfer would cost and whether spare parts are available to maintain the gun systems. Last week, a spokesman for Hayes said the congressman was told government and contractor costs are estimated at approximately $1 million for one year of support for AGS.

The funding, however, is not as much of a concern to the Army as the availability of parts for a system that was terminated eight years ago. Sources say UDLP can sustain the systems for a limited amount of time, but many of its components are now obsolete or unavailable. Supporting the system beyond one year poses high risk, sources said.

Herb Muktarian, a spokesman for UDLP’s ground systems division in York, said the systems are ready to go.

“We have not received any official requests from the Army regarding AGS, but the four AGS vehicles stored in York remain in excellent condition and we’re ready to provide support if asked to do so,” Muktarian said.

Maj. Rich Patterson, a spokesman for the 18th Airborne Corps, said officials at Ft. Bragg have been notified and are assembling the necessary manning documents, additional equipment and training plans, “with the intent to integrate the AGS into division operations as soon as possible.”

The vehicles will go to the 1st Battalion of the division’s 17th Cavalry Squadron, Patterson said. AGS will provide its assault teams “mobility, firepower and shock effects” within the “drop zone,” he added.

“It gives us a capability we could deploy if we need it,” Patterson said.

AGS features a 105 mm cannon, an ammunition autoloader and options for armor protection.

The division’s requirement for an air-droppable platform has existed at least since the 1990s, when the division disbanded one of its battalions -- the 3rd Battalion of the 73rd Armored Regiment, which was equipped with an aging armored reconnaissance vehicle called the Sheridan. At the time, service officials thought other capabilities would become available to the paratroopers once the M551 Sheridan was retired.

When the division deactivated the armored battalion in 1997, however, then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Dennis Reimer had already terminated AGS, which had been regarded as the Sheridan’s replacement. Eliminating AGS freed more than $1 billion over the service’s outyear funding plan -- money that was badly needed for other cash-strapped programs, officials said at the time.

Two years after the program was canceled, service officials said they continued to review options for all light forces that wanted more firepower. Vehicles reviewed included AGS, the Marine Corps’ Light Armored Vehicle, the Pandur lightweight vehicles used by the Kuwait National Guard and a variant of the M113 armored personnel carrier (ITA, Oct. 4, 1999, p1; Sept. 27, 1999, p1).

That effort, however, went nowhere, and the 82nd Airborne Division resubmitted its request for such a vehicle, eventually attracting Hayes’ attention.

“Let’s find out as soon as possible if AGS can serve effectively as a short-term solution for an immediate operational need,” Hayes told ITA last week.

-- Anne Plummer



Hmm wonder if they'll make a model of it now

GunTruck
Visit this Community
California, United States
Joined: December 01, 2001
KitMaker: 5,885 posts
Armorama: 3,799 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 03:02 AM UTC
Somebody send that news blurb to Italeri - quickly!

Gunnie
phoenix-1
Visit this Community
Wisconsin, United States
Joined: December 25, 2003
KitMaker: 629 posts
Armorama: 340 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 10:39 AM UTC
Does anybody have a pic of what this thing looks like? The curiosity is killing me.
Kyle
GunTruck
Visit this Community
California, United States
Joined: December 01, 2001
KitMaker: 5,885 posts
Armorama: 3,799 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 10:45 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Does anybody have a pic of what this thing looks like? The curiosity is killing me.
Kyle



http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m8-ags.htm

Here 'ya go. Now - was the M8 AGS gonna be called "Ridgeway" or "Buford"?

Gunnie
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 12:13 PM UTC
I heard Buford, the cavalry general who got the high ground first at Gettysburg. Classical cavalry mission: find the enemy first, fix him in place and cause him to deploy his forces prematurely.

R.P. Hunnicutt's Sheridan book covers the M8 AGS.
bf443
Visit this Community
Idaho, United States
Joined: May 16, 2003
KitMaker: 895 posts
Armorama: 283 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 06:55 PM UTC
Well its about time. Look out Stryker AGS something way better is here. I think it was criminal to disband the 82nd's armor without having vehicles to replace them. 4 vehicles is a good start but they had 54 Sheridians. I say its time to restart production, it's here and it works now not 10-20 years down the road whatever that future combat system concept turns into. This assumes that future Presidents, Congressmen and Pentagon staff will not mess with things. Better off to just go with the M8 and while there at it issue them some M113A3's to haul the troopers around as well.

Brian
blank
Visit this Community
Metro Manila, Philippines
Joined: August 28, 2003
KitMaker: 190 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 10:25 PM UTC
Amen to that bf443! I'd think the US would need a vehicle like this, for the strategic mobility it gives its forces... it's certainly much easier to ship to foreign troublespots than the Abrams.. and the thing looks WICKED with Level III armor! :-) #:-)
GLAARG
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: August 05, 2013
KitMaker: 25 posts
Armorama: 17 posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 - 04:29 PM UTC
Big Fan of the Buford (also the Thunderbolt which is Buford on steroids with an XM291, 120mm, main tube instead of the XM35, 105mm, of the original), though I favor the CCVL (Close Combat Vehicle, Light) even more.

Looks like the product of some giggles under the sheets between an M1 Abrams and a T-34.

Unfortunately, when the U.S. military dropped the M8 program after FMC went all in to get it federally certified as a 'production ready' (M not XM) milspec system, the owner operator of the then still family owned company, threw up his hands and decided not to play any more. Took his dollars as his dollies and went into the canned food business.

Everybody's gotta eat.

I believe the little adventure that caused the defunding of the M8 program was called 'KFOR' in the former Yugoslavia. Lost two billion dollars of rebuilding money to the local mafia while there. I hear the Treasury Department is still looking for it...

Could have bought the entire division a tank company per maneuver brigade +20 of spares for that.

Right now, as near as I can figure, the CCVL licenses, at least for the hull, belong to whoever bought out Vickers Defense LLC (BAe or EADS in some flavor) as the VFM-5 is/was basically a CCVL hull with a cheaper (no autoloader) turret.

United Defense I believe is also defunct and they had the license for the XM8 hull/turret combination.

If those licenses are free floating, given how enormously popular the M8 is on 'Armored Warfare', there is a real profit to be made kitting this tank, no matter how many are currently serving with the 82nd or Thailand.
SEDimmick
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Joined: March 15, 2002
KitMaker: 1,745 posts
Armorama: 1,483 posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 - 07:32 PM UTC
Holy old topic resurrection...actually BAE bought out FMC/United Defense a while ago.

The CCVL prototype was sold back in 2014

http://www.auctionsamerica.com/events/feature-lots.cfm?SaleCode=LC14&ID=r0083

To be technically specific...it was IFOR, which became SFOR (Implementation/Stabilization Force...I was part of it) that killed the funding. KFOR (Kosovo Force) didn't happen till 1999...IFOR/SFOR kicked off December 1995/January 1996 and SFOR started September 1996.

I'd like to see a kit of this too, but at the same time there is still alot of gaps in Modern/WW2 stuff that needs to be covered also.

Trisaw
Visit this Community
California, United States
Joined: December 24, 2002
KitMaker: 4,105 posts
Armorama: 2,492 posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 - 11:10 PM UTC
Wow, yes, old topic resurrection...some of the modelers I don't even see post here anymore for a long time.

Actually, it's also political in that the Airborne and Light Infantry generals wanted a light tank, but the heavy armor community usually got the funding and the spotlight (for years, and years, and years...and years!).

Now it's resurrected again with new light tank contenders.

I saw a video where the US Army was testing "Mobile Protected Firepower" options on computer, such as 8X8 turreted Armored Gun Systems (Centauro, JGSDF 105mm) and perhaps some tracked variants.

I don't think the US Army has issued any light tank "Mobile Protected Firepower" (MPF) requirements just yet, so it's not an official Program of Record.

BAE supposedly digitized their M8 AGS prototype's electronics they showed at AUSA 2016. General Dynamics offered a prototype of an Abrams turret on an UK AJAX chassis. Other than that, I haven't seen any news on what the Army is really looking for on the MPF, be it wheeled, 105mm or 120mm cannon, unmanned turret, or how much it should weigh.

It would make sense to have a light tank for infantry fire-support as there's quite a huge weight and firepower gap between the 30-ton Bradley's 25mm autocannon to the 70-ton 120mm M1A2, and Airborne has none of those with 40mm MK-19, M2HB, and TOW being their primary heavy weapons.

tankmodeler
#417
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Joined: March 01, 2004
KitMaker: 3,123 posts
Armorama: 2,539 posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 - 08:15 PM UTC
I think one of the problems with the AGS was the use of the 105mm and the expectation that the vehicle could at least be effective firing against MBTs.

If the vehicle is optimised for protected infantry support you could add some armour and maybe go with a lower velocity 75-105mm howitzer as armament. The 165mm demo gun of the AVRE/CEV would do the trick even better.

If you want it to kill tanks defensively, then plonk a 2 round Bradley TOW box on the side of the turret.

With a lighter gun (and less recoil) and a lower top speed requirement (infantry support not part of a heavy mechanised assault)you could actually increase the armour to be proof against things like 35mm round, like 1"+ steel plus ceramic MEXAS over the frontal arc. and still keep it under 25 tons.

In essence, an M41 Walker bulldog with the 75mm replaced by a 165mm demo gun, a twin-pack of TOWs on the turret side, four-man crew, good day-night sights and a nice diesel instead of the gasoline engine. All for under 25 tons.

No need for fancy fire control above that of the existing TOW system.

Paul
 _GOTOTOP